Technology

37717 readers

423 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Decentralized Twitter alternative Bluesky has published a moderation manifesto. - The Verge (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by realcaseyrollins@kbin.projectsegfau.lt to c/technology@beehaw.org

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A Friday blog post details the Bluesky team's moderation proposals for “a shared public commons,” using things like lists, hashtags, and even “per-thread” tools that would give moderation power to each poster. The latter treats threads like a mini-forum: if you don’t like a reply, you can yeet that skeet (or just hide it). The post acknowledges why this might be problematic: Along with algorithms, hands-off moderation fits right into Jack Dorsey’s original concept for decentralized social media.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] stu@lemmy.pit.ninja 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The goal of Bluesky is to turn social media into a shared public commons.

I agree with most of their blog post and it sounds like they're taking a very measured approach to building out federation, but I really want everyone to stop trying to insist social networks be "public commons". Moderation tools that do anything more than the bare minimum of blocking forms of speech that are not protected free speech by definition transform the social network into a place that's not a public commons. Being able to block individuals, communities, topics (via keywords and hashtags), and entire federated servers makes it so that if you really want, you never have to see viewpoints you strongly disagree with. The same is not guaranteed in real public commons. Every day you walk down the street, you have the potential to be confronted with ideas you never considered and your only recourse is to engage, drown out, try to ignore, or walk away from those people, which is not analogous to blocking and thereby deplatforming them online.

That said, I do not want my social network to be a public commons (and from what they're describing, it doesn't sound like Bluesky actually does either). Online, I want to be able to block and deplatform e.g. Nazis and MAGA trolls pre-emptively and with extreme prejudice because I want to enjoy my time on social networking sites, not raise my blood pressure.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

That said, I do not want my social network to be a public commons (and from what they’re describing, it doesn’t sound like Bluesky actually does either). Online, I want to be able to block and deplatform e.g. Nazis and MAGA trolls pre-emptively and with extreme prejudice because I want to enjoy my time on social networking sites, not raise my blood pressure.

I don't even want meatspace public spaces to foster an atmosphere that's conducive to hate. The government might not be able to stop a Nazi rally, but I want the community at large to make sure people never feel safe doing so, and for people to understand that publicly proclaiming your hatred and bile will make you a pariah.

[–] brndnpink@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I find the “digital commons” and the “online town square” metaphors to be poor ones when thinking about moderation on social networks. It’s shoehorning analog concepts onto digital information transmission systems. The two are not the same. Harassment and misinformation spread happen very differently digitally than they do in the analog world. “Digital commons” metaphors are prominent amongst “free speech” hardliners like Dorsey and Musk who simply don’t want to go through the hassle of developing, funding, and creating policy for online speech moderation. Anyone who uses phrases like digital commons loses a fair amount credibility in my eyes.